mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

High-Fidelity And Complex Test Data Generation For Google SQL Code Generation Services

arXiv 2504.17203 ↗First posted 24 Apr 2025cs.DB cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The demand for high-fidelity test data is paramount in industrial settings where access to production data is largely restricted. Traditional data generation methods often fall short, struggling with low-fidelity and the ability to model complex data structures and semantic relationships that are critical for testing complex SQL code generation services like Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL). In this paper, we address the critical need for generating syntactically correct and semantically relevant high-fidelity mock data for complex data structures that includes columns with nested structures that we frequently encounter in Google workloads. We highlight the limitations of existing approaches used in production, particularly their inability to handle large and complex data structures, as well as the lack of semantically coherent test data that lead to limited test coverage. We demonstrate that by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and incorporating strategic pre- and post-processing steps, we can generate syntactically correct and semantically relevant high-fidelity test data that adheres to complex structural constraints and maintains semantic integrity to the SQL test targets (queries/functions). This approach supports comprehensive testing of complex SQL queries involving joins, aggregations, and even deeply nested subqueries, ensuring robust evaluation of SQL code generation services, like NL2SQL and SQL Code Assistant. Our results demonstrate the practical utility of an LLM (textitGemini) based test data generation for industrial SQL code generation services where generating high-fidelity test data is essential due to the frequent unavailability and inaccessibility of production datasets for testing.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2025.

Builds on

21 of 46 references.

References · 21

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  3. 2022Language Models are Realistic Tabular Data Generatorscited by 294
  4. 2023An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generationcited by 194
  5. 2023Mixed-Type Tabular Data Synthesis with Score-based Diffusion in Latent Spacecited by 186
  6. 2022Can Foundation Models Wrangle Your Data?cited by 175
  7. 2023Machine Learning for Synthetic Data Generation: A Reviewcited by 120
  8. 2023Table Meets LLM: Can Large Language Models Understand Structured Table Data? A Benchmark and Empirical Studycited by 116
  9. 2023Synthetic Data Generation with Large Language Models for Text Classification: Potential and Limitationscited by 100
  10. 2023ChatUniTest: A Framework for LLM-Based Test Generationcited by 96
  11. 2023CoDi: Co-evolving Contrastive Diffusion Models for Mixed-type Tabular Synthesiscited by 78
  12. 2024DataDreamer: A Tool for Synthetic Data Generation and Reproducible LLM Workflowscited by 43
9 more
  1. 2022Fill in the Blank: Context-aware Automated Text Input Generation for Mobile GUI Testingcited by 36
  2. 2025Is Long Context All You Need? Leveraging LLM's Extended Context for NL2SQLcited by 30
  3. 2024Schema Matching with Large Language Models: an Experimental Studycited by 20
  4. 2023Column Type Annotation using ChatGPTcited by 19
  5. 2024VeriEQL: Bounded Equivalence Verification for Complex SQL Queries with Integrity Constraintscited by 8
  6. 2014Data Generation for Testing and Grading SQL Queriescited by 7
  7. 2015Estimating the Impact of Unknown Unknowns on Aggregate Query Resultscited by 2
  8. 2024Data Generation for Testing Complex Queriescited by 2
  9. 2024Can the Rookies Cut the Tough Cookie? Exploring the Use of LLMs for SQL Equivalence Checkingcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.